Thank you very much Fernando, as always very well explained and of course we are as always in accord.
As I noted in the excerpt from DeCosson (1900) the Madrid fencing master Rodriguez del Canto attempted a record of notable Toledo masters in 1734, which apparently had certain differences which were often incongruent with those compiled by Palomares in 1849.
Clearly these variations and omissions occur in the work of Don Enrique Leguina in 1897 in degree.
It seems well known that along with misspellings, the writing of names using various dialectic or liguistic conventions, especially in the well known spurious application which plagued the control of makers, punzones etc. is the very bane of scholars trying to identify blades.
This of course accounts for the apparent immortality of such makers as Tomas Aiala of Toledo and others whose name appears on blades many generations after their demise. The Andrea Ferara mystery is of course one of the most notorious of these dilemmas.
It seems most likely the name on this blade is one of these 'commemorative' applications inferring the renowned quality of Toledo blades, and possibly using an 'adjusted' name of a famed family to avoid being lumped into the commonly known names so typically used. This of course would add the imbuing of authenticity.
I have an early 17th c. blade marked to Wirsberg (Solingen) and inscribed in majescule letters SEBASTIAN, which would allude probably to Toledo maker Sebastian Hernandez, or perhaps not. If to a German maker, why not the entire name? Whatever the case, the implication is there, and perhaps in the same manner as this inscription with name that defies known registers.
10th, it is important to remember, that as Fernando has noted, these swords were not only mounted with blades imported from various sources, but also repaired using other batches of imported blades. In the Spanish colonies in America, boxes of rapier and dragoon blades have been found en masse in New Orleans and others. On one shipwreck off Panama, there were many boxes of blades only, most rapier using spurious inscriptions and Toledo marks. as the wreck(s) can be dated to 1690, we can see the period of the blades.
So what you have is an intriguing rapier with unusually large hilt, as was often the case having hilts tailored to the prospective owner, and in the fashion preferred locally or by period. It is mounted with what is most probably a blade using a spurious signature and could be from Germany in any number of shops, or possibly Italy. These were the most likely centers and remember that by the 1690s Toledo was literally defunct so only its reputation remained intact, still being used with the names of its former masters, which were often misspelled or improperly used.
The occurrence of the 'anchor' as used by Alonso Perez (found on the 1622 shipwreck) of course supports the theory of the spurious use applied to this blade. Often blades from Solingen had spurious names added along with Toledo markings which were not aligned with the names used.
|